MML Electrification: progress updates

[Hairy Bear]

It' s not a problem. All you do is stop the emt train who's right time, doing somewhere between 105 and 125mph, bring him to a stand, and let the Thameslink trundle across at 40 into the platform. Simples !!.

 

[SPADTrap]

It' s not a problem. All you do is stop the emt train who's right time, doing somewhere between 105 and 125mph, bring him to a stand, and let the Thameslink trundle across at 40 into the platform. Simples !!.

Or worse have the Thameslink over in time and stop the EMT because they've not reset the route, until the HST gets to the red.

 

[AM9]

Yes. In principle the timetable can be set up so that trains in both directions make the crossing move simultaneously, so that conflict does not occur, but this may not be possible due to constraints elsewhere on the route and obviously it breaks down if one of the trains is a couple of minutes late. There has been talk of grade separation for some of these crossovers but it would be quite difficult to do.

I'e suggested it in the 'Most compelling case for a flying junction in the country' thread, and I would argue that with the MML from Dock Junction to Beford being a pair of parallel two-track routes, each nominally serving different services provided by two different TOCs. In practice, these services are intermingled with multiple transfers between the two routes at these flat junctions. Although it wouldn't be cheap, a far better long-term solution would be to change from the FFSS configuration to a much more efficient SFFS one allowing far less disruption to UF and DS services when the very slick timetabling breaks down. The land take for such a stream would be minimal apart from a single track flyover/diveunder near both Kentish Town and Bedford with a slight modification of St Albans and Luton terminator turn-round practice. Even most of the realignment of the DS to enable it's use as an UF would probably be acheivable within the existing boundaries.

 

[mr_jrt]

Whilst aligning the lines whilst maintaining line speed is probably easier that way around, you would surely need grade separation at each turnback point for SFFS unless...you wanted to cross both fast lines at grade for every turnback, which surely defeats the point somewhat. So you would have to weigh up the cost of the grade separation at Kentish Town, St Albans, Luton and Bedford against the required land purchases to maintain line speed with a FSSF configuration (and the cost that those turnback points effectively become fixed - having a FSSF configuration makes it far easier to add or remove turnback locations if desired as at a minimum all you need is a simple crossover, though obviously a turnback siding between the lines using the projected footprint of the platform is preferable). I suspect your SFFS proposal would still win out given the sheer number of locations around stations where you would have to ease the up slow's curvature, but it's still something that should to be considered.

...and though not numerous, the MML does still have a few branches left that you need to consider: Thameslink (in theory covered by any grade separation at Kentish Town), the link to the Goblin at Gospel Oak, the flyover south of Mill Hill from the Hendon lines, and of course the Marston Vale line at Bedford. I presume you would leave the Bedford to Kettering as FFSS to save needing to build grade separation at Glendon junction as you could just use whatever gets built at Bedford, (i.e. effectively the Corby branch would begin at Bedford).

 

[AM9]

Whilst aligning the lines whilst maintaining line speed is probably easier that way around, you would surely need grade separation at each turnback point for SFFS unless...you wanted to cross both fast lines at grade for every turnback, which surely defeats the point somewhat. So you would have to weigh up the cost of the grade separation at Kentish Town, St Albans, Luton and Bedford against the required land purchases to maintain line speed with a FSSF configuration (and the cost that those turnback points effectively become fixed - having a FSSF configuration makes it far easier to add or remove turnback locations if desired as at a minimum all you need is a simple crossover, though obviously a turnback siding between the lines using the projected footprint of the platform is preferable). I suspect your SFFS proposal would still win out given the sheer number of locations around stations where you would have to ease the up slow's curvature, but it's still something that should to be considered.

I recognise the St Albans and Luton turnback issue hence the mention of some modification of the practice. There are only two turnbacks per hour at each durng the day, and only four between 08:00 and 09:00, but I agree it would need some additional grade separation/dynamic loops/or alternative location peak-hour reversals. There are 6 up and 5 down EM trains occupying the fasts south of St Albans in addition to 6 up and 4 down (counted at Hendon using RTT). There are a couple of wild options that may be looked at:

1) if the Strateigic Railfreight terminal ever gets built on Radlett Aerodrome (I seriously hope not) there may be some possibility of the projected grade separation of its connection with the mainline being available to return the down slow from the western side of the formation to its current position on the opposite side of the fasts.
2) That would leave the busy Harpenden crossovers which could be used less if a dynamic loop was provided between Harpenden and Luton Airport maybe using the extended trackbed of the GN branch from Luton to Welwyn where it ran alonsided the MML (now NCN61). A loop here could allow delayed TL trains to reduce speed and allow fast EM trains to overtake with less of a delay to either train. Getting back onto the slows could then be delayed to Luton, Leagrave or even Flitwick crossovers.​

...and though not numerous, the MML does still have a few branches left that you need to consider: Thameslink (in theory covered by any grade separation at Kentish Town), the link to the Goblin at Gospel Oak, the flyover south of Mill Hill from the Hendon lines, and of course the Marston Vale line at Bedford. I presume you would leave the Bedford to Kettering as FFSS to save needing to build grade separation at Glendon junction as you could just use whatever gets built at Bedford, (i.e. effectively the Corby branch would begin at Bedford).

The GOBlin link at Carlton Road AFAIK doesn't have any timetabled passengers services, so I assume that most of its traffic is freight or stock movements. Those lines can of course use the current slow to fast ladder which currently handles up to eight fast TL trains per hour. The Dudding Hill branch may one day get turned into a LO route but freight can still access it via its dedicated lines on the west side.
At Slipstream Junction, the flyover would give up slow access to the freight lines (the fast probably being abandoned in improving the fast alignment). There is already a trailing connection to the current fast down which would be suitable for freight to join the down slow.
If the SRFT at Radlett happened, the situation at Bedford would stay as is (which might be improved sometime soon anyway). If the SFFS arrangement went all the way to Bedford, there is probably an opportunity to swich back to FFSS between the River Ouse and Ford End bridges.
All in all, without massive land take for additional tracks or similar, I think this would give the most cost-effective uplift in capacity for the MML.

 

[furnessvale]

<SNIP>

1) if the Strateigic Railfreight terminal ever gets built on Radlett Aerodrome (I seriously hope not) there may be some possibility of the projected grade separation of its connection with the mainline being available to return the down slow from the western side of the formation to its current position on the opposite side of the fasts.
<SNIP>
​

If the freight terminal is built you will have nothing to worry about. According to the "antis" it is a huge white elephant which will be served by road haulage so no freight trains to upset the passengers.

If, however, it does develop into another Daventry much freight will be removed from our roads so we will all win.​

 

[AM9]

If the freight terminal is built you will have nothing to worry about. According to the "antis" it is a huge white elephant which will be served by road haulage so no freight trains to upset the passengers.

If, however, it does develop into another Daventry much freight will be removed from our roads so we will all win.​

If the freight terminal is built St Albans has everything to worry about. Part of the plans said that if the freight didn't go to rail, it would expect to operate as a road to road transfer terminal. If I go on it will become very OT for this thread, It's not just about locals but virtually all road users wanting to go north using M25 Junctions 21 to 23 would be adversely affected. Maybe another thread.

If it is successful, the MML has, I think, been upgraded to W10 and trains would need to be integrated into the MML service pattern. The slows are generally OK outside of the peaks. I only mentioned the terminal because there will be budget to provide a grade separated entry from the slow lines. That could be adapted to support the reconfiguration of the lines south of Bedford to the benefit of both freight and passenger traffic.

 

[Bald Rick]

If, however, it does develop into another Daventry much freight will be removed from our roads so we will all win.​

If the freight terminal is built St Albans has everything to worry about. Part of the plans said that if the freight didn't go to rail, it would expect to operate as a road to road transfer terminal. If I go on it will become very OT for this thread, It's not just about locals but virtually all road users wanting to go north using M25 Junctions 21 to 23 would be adversely affected. Maybe another thread.

If it is successful, the MML has, I think, been upgraded to W10 and trains would need to be integrated into the MML service pattern. The slows are generally OK outside of the peaks. I only mentioned the terminal because there will be budget to provide a grade separated entry from the slow lines. That could be adapted to support the reconfiguration of the lines south of Bedford to the benefit of both freight and passenger traffic.

OT I know, but if that terminal is built, it will cause a very significant increase in road traffic.

Also, the MML south of Bedford is very definitely not W10. It’s W8 between Cricklewood and Bedford (with no funded plans to change that) and W6 on the rest of the route. There are some big tunnels that need rebuilding. Quite how the big containers are going to get anywhere useful is a mystery to me.

Back ON topic... rather than building at least 2 flyovers and having to rebuild nearly 50 miles of the Down Slow (which has lots of difficult speed restrictions) to reconfigure the tracks, surely it would be easier just to keep the tracks as they are, and use the flyovers to get fast trains between slows and fasts at, say, Carlton Road area and somewhere around Harpenden.

 

[AM9]

OT I know, but if that terminal is built, it will cause a very significant increase in road traffic.

I agree with that and it isn't at all an act of NIMBYism to say that. Up at Sandon, they are pleading for it's location there.

Also, the MML south of Bedford is very definitely not W10. It’s W8 between Cricklewood and Bedford (with no funded plans to change that) and W6 on the rest of the route. There are some big tunnels that need rebuilding. Quite how the big containers are going to get anywhere useful is a mystery to me.

OK, I stand corrected.

Back ON topic... rather than building at least 2 flyovers and having to rebuild nearly 50 miles of the Down Slow (which has lots of difficult speed restrictions) to reconfigure the tracks, surely it would be easier just to keep the tracks as they are, and use the flyovers to get fast trains between slows and fasts at, say, Carlton Road area and somewhere around Harpenden.

That would of course mean some of the fast TL workings staying in front of EM trains for longer instead of escapting using the Radlett south junction crossover. Would a grade separation south of Harpenden require an expensive land take as the current junction ladder spans about 400m of which over half is on an embankment. Thye south of the ladder for another 1100m, the line is flanked closely by housing.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I agree with that and it isn't at all an act of NIMBYism to say that. Up at Sandon, they are pleading for it's location there.



OK, I stand corrected.



That would of course mean some of the fast TL workings staying in front of EM trains for longer instead of escapting using the Radlett south junction crossover. Would a grade separation south of Harpenden require an expensive land take as the current junction ladder spans about 400m of which over half is on an embankment. Thye south of the ladder for another 1100m, the line is flanked closely by housing.

I follow all this with keen interest , but will refrain from comments about the so called Radlett Terminal , in favour of grade seperation.

Impossible to grade seperate around Carlton Road Junction - the railway , exactly a 150 years old and sliced through the area in the still impressive brick cuttings (causing much social and economic blight - now happily reversed in the last few decades) , Silkstream has some land - but is too far out , - however the 40 mph crossovers at Radlett (South) , are well used and managed effectively. That location is the Green Belt fringe between Elstree and Radlett , and has (underused) fields and a rugby club. This could be used , but you can expect huge protests from very well organised / connected locals.

Some years ago , for a strategic manager I went one freezing Sunday morning to look at the options of 5 tracking through St Albans - basically very tight and frankly not possible.

A personal bug of mine , and when I was paid to work for the industry , is the non track circuiting of the SAC Turnback siding - soon to be used for up to 4 tph , - but the signal persons at WH have to put a magnetic reminder disc on the panel to remind them what is in there ! (digital railway - don't make me laugh ...!) .....

 

[edwin_m]

I agree with that and it isn't at all an act of NIMBYism to say that. Up at Sandon, they are pleading for it's location there.

Sundon?

Would a grade separation south of Harpenden require an expensive land take as the current junction ladder spans about 400m of which over half is on an embankment. Thye south of the ladder for another 1100m, the line is flanked closely by housing.

The flying junction wouldn't necessarily have to be in exactly the same place as the existing ladder. In fact it would be better to put it elsewhere, so the ladder can remain in use while any flying junction is being built. My guess is if this happened it would be a bit further south on the rural section between the southern edge of Harpenden and the northern edge of St Albans. I presume this is green belt but there are few homes nearby and a couple of sections of cutting that might reduce the visual impact. However the land take would be considerable.

(digital railway - don't make me laugh ...!) .....

They need to use fingers to hold the magnet - there you are, digitial railway...

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The flying junction wouldn't necessarily have to be in exactly the same place as the existing ladder. In fact it would be better to put it elsewhere, so the ladder can remain in use while any flying junction is being built. My guess is if this happened it would be a bit further south on the rural section between the southern edge of Harpenden and the northern edge of St Albans. I presume this is green belt but there are few homes nearby and a couple of sections of cutting that might reduce the visual impact. However the land take would be considerable.

Yes - arable green belt - so north of Sandridgebury Lane and south of Ayots End , gentle embankments and cuttings. That would certainly work. Good idea.

Another idea mooted and generally discussed was taking a slice off the carpark at Harpenden and making the present up slow line a platform based centre turn back. (vice St Albans for say 2 tph) -trouble is the Harpendonians are a bit touchy at the moment with various train service changes next month. Mind you , they are always touchy.


They need to use fingers to hold the magnet - there you are, digitial railway...[/QUOTE]

Nice one !

 

[londonmidland]

At Leicester, the Up Main on platform 3 has had its TSR took away so 40MPH working through platform 3. Impressive to hear a HST scream towards London rather than power off for 15MPH.

All other TSR are in place still as far as I’m aware.

 

[Senex]

At Leicester, the Up Main on platform 3 has had its TSR took away so 40MPH working through platform 3. Impressive to hear a HST scream towards London rather than power off for 15MPH.

All other TSR are in place still as far as I’m aware.

Excellent news! Leaves one wondering why this wasn't done years ago, as the space was available as soon as the box came down back in the 1980s.

 

[Domh245]

Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling was forced to defend his comments regarding bi-mode trains, during a House of Commons debate on April 19.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-op, York Central) stated that on July 20 last year, Grayling had said bi-mode trains could “achieve the same significant improvements to journeys”.

She then highlighted the recent National Audit Office report into electrification that said this was not the case (RAIL 850).

Grayling claimed: “Let us be clear. I stand by every word that I said then. We will deliver smart new trains and improved journey times for passengers on the Midland Main Line, as we are currently doing and will continue to do on the Great Western Main Line, and as we will do on the East Coast Main Line and the trans-Pennine route.”

He reiterated his claim that spending £1 billion on wiring the MML would save just one minute in journey times.

He made these comments just after stating: “Trains on the Midland Main Line require the addition of one engine to provide a little bit of extra acceleration, but they already exist, and will be great for that line as well,” during a debate with Jonathan Edwards (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr).

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/grayling-taken-to-task-over-bi-mode-comments

 

[Flying Phil]

Lots of work planned for this weekend it seems.
"On Saturday 28th April and Sunday 29th April, Network Rail engineers will be carrying out work along the Midland Mainline, causing significant to train services in the area

The upgrades ongoing include the track to increase the lineside through Market Harborough. Preparation work will also be taking place for the installation of the fourth track between Bedford and Kettering to increase capacity.


Additionally, Ford End Road bridge in Bedford, Cottingham Road bridge in Corby and Bush bridge in Wellingborough reach milestones and are demolished and reconstructed in readiness for the electrification of the line.

All weekend, East Midlands Trains services will be replaced by buses between Luton and Leicester and Thameslink services will be replaced by buses between Luton and Bedford."
I am intrigued by the " track to increase the lineside through Market Harborough"?

 

[Mordac]

Lots of work planned for this weekend it seems.
"On Saturday 28th April and Sunday 29th April, Network Rail engineers will be carrying out work along the Midland Mainline, causing significant to train services in the area

The upgrades ongoing include the track to increase the lineside through Market Harborough. Preparation work will also be taking place for the installation of the fourth track between Bedford and Kettering to increase capacity.


Additionally, Ford End Road bridge in Bedford, Cottingham Road bridge in Corby and Bush bridge in Wellingborough reach milestones and are demolished and reconstructed in readiness for the electrification of the line.

All weekend, East Midlands Trains services will be replaced by buses between Luton and Leicester and Thameslink services will be replaced by buses between Luton and Bedford."
I am intrigued by the " track to increase the lineside through Market Harborough"?

Who let the work experience kid write the press releases again?

 

[Bald Rick]

That would of course mean some of the fast TL workings staying in front of EM trains for longer instead of escapting using the Radlett south junction crossover. Would a grade separation south of Harpenden require an expensive land take as the current junction ladder spans about 400m of which over half is on an embankment. Thye south of the ladder for another 1100m, the line is flanked closely by housing.

Most down fast Thameslinks are booked to cross at Harpenden; and the flyers not until Bedford South. Very few go across at Radlett, even in the new TT. A bi di, single track flyover from between the fasts to between the shows (going northbound) would do the trick. It would be faster than Harpenden S Jn too, 70mph would be easy, even 90 might be possible.

The flying junction wouldn't necessarily have to be in exactly the same place as the existing ladder. In fact it would be better to put it elsewhere, so the ladder can remain in use while any flying junction is being built. My guess is if this happened it would be a bit further south on the rural section between the southern edge of Harpenden and the northern edge of St Albans. I presume this is green belt but there are few homes nearby and a couple of sections of cutting that might reduce the visual impact. However the land take would be considerable.

Yes - arable green belt - so north of Sandridgebury Lane and south of Ayots End , gentle embankments and cuttings. That would certainly work. Good idea.

Arable Green belt for now... around Sandridgebury Lane is in the mix to be released from the green belt. However beyond that it is basically farmland for about a mile, more than enough to get up and down with 1:100 gradients that are good for freight (for the rare occasions they would use it).

Not going to happen though.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Most down fast Thameslinks are booked to cross at Harpenden; and the flyers not until Bedford South. Very few go across at Radlett, even in the new TT. A bi di, single track flyover from between the fasts to between the shows (going northbound) would do the trick. It would be faster than Harpenden S Jn too, 70mph would be easy, even 90 might be possible.



Arable Green belt for now... around Sandridgebury Lane is in the mix to be released from the green belt. However beyond that it is basically farmland for about a mile, more than enough to get up and down with 1:100 gradients that are good for freight (for the rare occasions they would use it).

Not going to happen though.

NO - but worth putting into the "ideas" memory bank.

One that sticks is the idea of a junction at Mill Hill - stated categorically a few years ago (before Mr Baldricks time I add) - definately not worth the idea ...

 

[Senex]

Build a couple of sets of dynamic loops on the slows (or platform loops at a couple of stations if it were possible) and keep Thameslink to the slows. (In late BR times when the Sole User concept was around, weren't the fasts allocated to IC and the slows to TL?)

 

[Bald Rick]

Build a couple of sets of dynamic loops on the slows (or platform loops at a couple of stations if it were possible) and keep Thameslink to the slows. (In late BR times when the Sole User concept was around, weren't the fasts allocated to IC and the slows to TL?)

For accounting purposes, yes (and it was Prime User, not Sole user). But the service was very different then - the off peak service was less than half what it is today. In the peaks many Thameslink services used the fasts.

Any such dynamic loops would have to be long, and take in at least 2 stations. There does, however, seem to be a decent corridor immediately to the east of the line between Hendon and Elstree Tunnel, perhaps the new lines could be built there.

 

[Senex]

For accounting purposes, yes (and it was Prime User, not Sole user). But the service was very different then - the off peak service was less than half what it is today. In the peaks many Thameslink services used the fasts.

Any such dynamic loops would have to be long, and take in at least 2 stations. There does, however, seem to be a decent corridor immediately to the east of the line between Hendon and Elstree Tunnel, perhaps the new lines could be built there.

Thanks for the correction — though didn't it all start life as the "Sole User Infrastructure Survey" (which I seem to remember from one or two very early documents I saw) and then became Prime User in general application? And there were some fascinating real oddities in the application.
Hendon to Elstree tunnel was a section I was thinking of. I hadn't looked at the aerial mapping for any station where new platform-loops might allow stoppers to be ovetaken by Thameslink fasts.
The service was indeed very different, both on the main-line route and on Thameslink. Had we been in, say Switzerland, there wouldn't have been a massive increase in services without asking whether the infrastructure could cope properly with it, and then doing something if the answer was no. But the British practice always seems to have been the other way round, to push the infrastructure to its limits and only begin to think of doing anything when reliability of the timetable seems to suffer. Though going back a good few years before there was anything like the present level of service on the MML I remember fast trains routinely coming almost to a stand before Radlett or Harpenden whilst a down local got out of the way in front. And there was a morning up fast from Leicester that was pretty well invariably stopped at Watling Street because of a crossing move for a local.

 

[AM9]

Thanks for the correction — though didn't it all start life as the "Sole User Infrastructure Survey" (which I seem to remember from one or two very early documents I saw) and then became Prime User in general application? And there were some fascinating real oddities in the application.
Hendon to Elstree tunnel was a section I was thinking of. I hadn't looked at the aerial mapping for any station where new platform-loops might allow stoppers to be ovetaken by Thameslink fasts.
The service was indeed very different, both on the main-line route and on Thameslink. Had we been in, say Switzerland, there wouldn't have been a massive increase in services without asking whether the infrastructure could cope properly with it, and then doing something if the answer was no. But the British practice always seems to have been the other way round, to push the infrastructure to its limits and only begin to think of doing anything when reliability of the timetable seems to suffer. Though going back a good few years before there was anything like the present level of service on the MML I remember fast trains routinely coming almost to a stand before Radlett or Harpenden whilst a down local got out of the way in front. And there was a morning up fast from Leicester that was pretty well invariably stopped at Watling Street because of a crossing move for a local.

As for the re-assignment of tracks (FFSS to SFFS) breifly discussed above, a long dynamic loop would involve a lot of re-alignment to ensure continuous 100mph running, - otherwise there's no point in doing it. Even if it was done, with no more than 4 miles usable length, it could prove operationally almost as difficult to use as the current practice of switching to the fast line. If there are to be loops, they would be better between the fast lines to allow all fast delayed/out of sequence trains to shuffle as required. The concept of sole use is irrelevant unless there were separate tracks of freight as well as it is no unknown for even the Thameslink stoppers to be delayed by 30 wagon freight trains with average speeds below 40mph. All operational tracks are 'railway' assets.

 

[38Cto15E]

I was on the 1200 HST from Leicester to St Pancras yesterday and it was very noticeable the extra speed through the bridge hole, like an earlier poster said it must be good to hear a HST power southwards from platform 3.

 

[edwin_m]

Noticed today during an unexpected stop just north of Kettering that the piles have custom-made orange plastic "lids", presumably to stop ingress of water or people. Have these been used anywhere else? I hope they don't indicate that there won't be anything else attached to the piles for a long time.

 

[mr_jrt]

If you were to lay new lines between Hendon and Elstree tunnels, could you not go further, to say the southern edge of St Albans, and have a parkway station there, then operate an all-stations LO service on the (now extended) Hendon lines and run Thameslink semi-fast, serving only the new parkway station, West Hampstead and maybe one other station?

 

[londonmidland]

Noticed today during an unexpected stop just north of Kettering that the piles have custom-made orange plastic "lids", presumably to stop ingress of water or people. Have these been used anywhere else? I hope they don't indicate that there won't be anything else attached to the piles for a long time.

I noticed during when the electrification works was on pause, the pilings near Bedford had yellow “lids” on them. I’m not sure what they were for.

If I remember seeing correctly, these have been replaced with orange “lids” with screws on so possibly an attachment for the structures?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

If you were to lay new lines between Hendon and Elstree tunnels, could you not go further, to say the southern edge of St Albans, and have a parkway station there, then operate an all-stations LO service on the (now extended) Hendon lines and run Thameslink semi-fast, serving only the new parkway station, West Hampstead and maybe one other station?

Road traffic is appalling now in the SAC area , such that even a minor accident in the peaks causes huge backs , often lasting well over an hour. If for any reason the M25, M1 , has a serious back-up or incident - then the traffic overflows onto the local network. Carnage.

A park and ride on the Radlett site , would really make things very much worse. (though if the latter site became a decent "garden village" - with a mix of housing that even locals could afford , with walking options then a new station on the long lost Napsbury site might work - but for no more than 2 calls per hour on the slow trains. The 700's could manage that I reckon.

One of the problems of the route is the increasing density of housing , built right up to the railway boundary. Classic examples being Mill Hill and Elstree on the down, St Albans on the up , - and the low density areas around the RAF museum now resemble a mini Manhattan. No easy answers.....(and slightly off-topic)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I noticed during when the electrification works was on pause, the pilings near Bedford had yellow “lids” on them. I’m not sure what they were for.

If I remember seeing correctly, these have been replaced with orange “lids” with screws on so possibly an attachment for the structures?

Perhaps not completely relevant but bright orange is easier to pigment in plastic. The photo is of a rebar cap. It protects people from being impaled on protruding rebar - orange is the preferred colour and also helps the end of the rebar not to corrode. So putting an orange cap on an electrification pile seems a good idea.

 

[Domh245]

So putting an orange cap on an electrification pile seems a good idea.

Putting gantries and masts on the piles would be a better idea